2019-11-22: Cornell 2 Quinnipiac 1

[Trotsky]

IINM the rule (or its guidance) says explicitly not to do that.  That if the replay shows you missed the minor you say "sorry, eyes can't be everywhere" and let it go.  That is what happened earlier in the game with our hit against the boards.  Again, IMO.  I don't think the refs issue explanations after the game.

[marty]

"Delay of game -- contact to the head."  ;-)

In the BU NCAA game in 2018? I thought it was interference.

[upprdeck]

i thought the replay on the first hit was caused more by their guy checking with his head down and the 2nd one as obvious live and on replay pretty clear he hit him in the head with a cross check in the face

[andyw2100]

What was the deal with what went on after the final buzzer? It looked to me like the Cornell player took a shot at the empty net (that just missed the outside post) perhaps half a second to a second after the buzzer, and was then attacked by at least two different Quinnipiac players. Were they just annoyed that he shot at an empty net after the buzzer? I've seen players go after players who take late shots with a goalie in net, but I always assumed that was a "protect the goalie" sentiment. This was not that, obviously, since the Quinnipiac goalie was on the bench.

[ugarte]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.

[Trotsky]

Pecker often gets his team riled up with the old Sturm und Drang.  I assume he'll pick another fight with Colgate tonight, especially if things go badly.  It's nothing to pay attention to.  Just his style, which is one reason Mike does not appear to regard him with esteem.

[marty]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

[upprdeck]

yeah the first guy cross checked him as he just threw the puck at the net just after the whistle and the 2nd guy came out of no where pretty pissed off for some reason.

[David Harding]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

The box score is here.  https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf  It was a clean game.  There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell.  No other penalties.

[marty]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

The box score is here.  https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf  It was a clean game.  There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell.  No other penalties.

No.  There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call).  That box is wrong.  I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.

[David Harding]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

The box score is here.  https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf  It was a clean game.  There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell.  No other penalties.

No.  There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call).  That box is wrong.  I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.

OK.  I wasn't there.  The Sun blogger didn't mention a major penalty.

[marty]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

The box score is here.  https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf  It was a clean game.  There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell.  No other penalties.

No.  There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call).  That box is wrong.  I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.

OK.  I wasn't there.  The Sun blogger didn't mention a major penalty.

Yes I looked at that today too.

But the more I search the more I think my memory is faulty. The clip of the end of the game shows 6 Cornell players on the ice.

I did find one instance of a major for interference. I don't know if this was after a video review.  But it does seem like a weird and uncommon call.

Starrett

[marty]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.

The box score is here.  https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf  It was a clean game.  There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell.  No other penalties.

No.  There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call).  That box is wrong.  I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.

OK.  I wasn't there.  The Sun blogger didn't mention a major penalty.

Yes I looked at that today too.

But the more I search the more I think my memory is faulty. The clip of the end of the game shows 6 Cornell players on the ice.

I did find one instance of a major for interference. I don't know if this was after a video review.  But it does seem like a weird and uncommon call.

Starrett

Proving I'm only half brain dead.  Here is the box vs. Mass Lowell where McCarron had the five minute major for interference. Of course it made no difference because we were shut out. Though it was 3-0 when they called the major.

5-0 NCAA 2017 loss to Lowell